• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

USDA to cut testing

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mad cow's rarity could cut testing

BY JOE RUFF




WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER


A study indicates that mad cow disease is so rare in the United States that testing for the brain-wasting disorder could be reduced, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Friday.

"I would argue that there's little justification for continuing surveillance at this level once our analysis is affirmed," Johanns said.

Cattle industry groups said they were pleased that a U.S. Department of Agriculture study indicates only four to seven animals in the United States are likely to have the disease, but at least one group did not want to see reduced testing.

"We think the USDA needs to expand its testing," said Shae Dodson of Montana-based R-Calf United Stockgrowers of America.

Federal officials said a maintenance level of testing in compliance with international standards could lower sampling from about 1,000 animals a day to 110 per day. No decision on testing levels has been made, officials said.

Michael Kelsey, executive vice president of the Nebraska Cattlemen, said the federal government's surveillance program proves that bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, in the United States is limited to a few isolated cases. The group wants to study the issue of testing levels and see what federal officials recommend before deciding what number would be adequate, Kelsey said.

"We believe maintenance testing, at a minimum, needs to be maintained," he said.


Ambassador Kato said he was impressed by conditions at Timmerman & Sons Feeding Co. near Springfield, Neb.

Gary Weber, executive director of regulatory affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said his group favors testing that meets international standards and gives people confidence that the disease is being adequately monitored.

"We don't know what the number should be," Weber said.

Johanns said an independent, scientific review will be conducted of the data analyzed under his agency's enhanced surveillance program. The USDA released the data Friday. Information thus far indicates the prevalence of BSE is extremely low, Johanns said.

"Science enables us to set a 95 percent confidence level in that estimate," Johanns said. "In other words, we have an extraordinarily healthy herd of cattle in our country."

Mad cow disease has been linked with a rare but deadly disease in humans that was blamed for more than 150 deaths during an outbreak in Europe in the early 1990s.

Since December 2003, three cases of mad cow disease have been found in animals in the United States. One of those animals was from Canada.

The USDA has tested more than 690,000 animals since June 2004, or more than 1,000 cattle per day from 5,700 locations, including farms, meatpacking plants and rendering plants, Johanns said. The department also looked at data going back to 1999, studying a total of more than 730,000 samples collected over seven years, Johanns said.

Johanns and others credited several actions for the apparently low rate of BSE in the United States, including a 1997 ban on certain types of cattle feed and the removal of specified risk materials from cattle as they are slaughtered.

Dodson said R-Calf believes the ban on including cattle parts in cattle feed should be broadened to also bar items such as chicken litter in feed. The group also fears that allowing cows from Canada, which has reported at least five cases of mad cow disease, might jeopardize the U.S. cattle herd.

Given those concerns, testing needs to remain high in the United States, Dodson said.

Dillon Feuz, a professor of agricultural economics at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said the ban on feeding cattle parts to live cattle - the primary way BSE is spread - appears to be working because there have not been many cases of mad cow disease found in the United States.

Surveillance testing helps monitor occurrence of the illness, Feuz said, but BSE has not become a health issue in the United States because of the many safeguards taken against having contaminated material enter the food supply. Animals showing symptoms of mad cow disease are destroyed, and risk materials such as spinal columns and brains always are removed, he said.

"Whether we're testing animals or not, the at-risk materials are being removed," Feuz said.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Gary Weber, executive director of regulatory affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said his group favors testing that meets international standards and gives people confidence that the disease is being adequately monitored.

"We don't know what the number should be," Weber said.

What a clone! How obviously politician-like is this statement? DUH

Are we testing enough to give the Japs confidence? YES or NO

Right, we don't know what the number should be!?!? Clearly his answer is right in front of his nose! Clue: Test enough for the Japs to be more confident!

Profound statement Gary. I like the way you cut right through the chaff and get right to the point! :???: :???: :???: :???:
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
The USDA has tested more than 690,000 animals since June 2004, or more than 1,000 cattle per day from 5,700 locations, including farms, meatpacking plants and rendering plants, Johanns said. The department also looked at data going back to 1999, studying a total of more than 730,000 samples collected over seven years, Johanns said.

The bottom line on this issue is that if all animals are tested, this issue would not be an issue would it??? Then the American and the Canadian National Herd would not fall under any scrutiny and the product(s) would be declared totally safe for human consumption without having to have a constant debate as to how many should be tested to satisfy a political assumption or to impress a foreign market.

100% testing would take care of all of that!!!

Further, if the cost of the "per-animal test" was so inexpensive as to not affect the price per pound of the end product to a point where it became uncomfortable for the producers, then what is the argument going to be against 100% testing other than one that is purely poilitcal???
 

PORKER

Well-known member
100% testing would take care of all of that!!!

I remember a person on Ranchers.net which I suspect was Japanese (No TEST NO SALE )was his handle, that made it clear that the only way we could sell Beef to Japan was to test IT !!!
 

Latest posts

Top